Sections

Remember that time Sean Casey asked Vic Toews and Rob Nicholson for their Internet history?

Canada's Public Safety Minister Vic Toews (R) speaks as Canada Attorney General and Minister of Justice Rob Nicholson (L) looks on during a press conference with US Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and US Attorney General Eric Holder November 10, 2010 during the 2010 Cross-Border Crime Forum at the Department of Justice in Washington, DC. AFP PHOTO/Mandel NGAN (Photo credit should read MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty Images)

OTTAWA — You may recall that in April, Liberal MP Sean Casey asked to see two weeks worth of Internet history for Justice Minister Rob Nicholson and Public Safety Minister Vic Toews.

On Thursday, Casey brought up the question again, this time in the House of Commons and specifically to Speaker Andrew Scheer, arguing that the answer he received to his written query had nothing to do with the contents of the question.

He wanted details of every website the ministers visited from Feb. 1 to Feb. 14, the date that the government introduced the controversial online surveillance bill, Bill C-30.

“I make no mention of Bill C-30 in my question,” Casey told the Commons Thursday. “I did not ask for the IP address or email addresses of the ministers, I certainly did not request their phone number, mailing address, or the name of their service provider. What I did ask for was specific information related to websites accessed by the ministers of justice and public safety from their government-issued laptops, desktop computers, tablets and other devices provided and paid for by the taxpayers of Canada. These are not personal instruments of communication, they are the property of the government, paid for by the taxpayers. They are not exempt from disclosure.”

Casey argued that there were no national security issues that could get in the way of the public finding out whether ministers visited websites such as CNN or “one could imagine, the CBC.”

“Regular accountability audits are conducted by the government of Canada with respect to the computer usage of public servants, the same public servants who work for ministers. These audits are done to ensure public and government business is being conducted properly, and that the websites accessed by public servants are material and relevant to their work. If that type of accountability is necessary for public servants, why not for ministers?”

Casey asked Scheer to review the answers to his questions, and consider providing Casey with another written question.

Scheer said he would consider the matter (as he routinely does). The government argued that Casey had other avenues to ask his question if he didn’t like the answer, but that the answer was provided.

“If the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police did not believe strongly, sincerely and whole heartedly that passage of Bill C30 would help to save lives, protect the victims of cybercrime and prevent others from becoming victims we would not be supporting this legislation.

It is understandable that the public is confused about what this bill actually contains especially when they read that with it police can conduct warrantless searches. That has never been the case, nor would we ever want it to be. In fact, 3 provincial privacy commissioners recently stated in letters to your newspaper, “It has long been acknowledged that Bill C-30 does not provide law enforcement with the authority to access the content of private communications without a warrant”. Existing laws do allow police to intercept private communications without warrant in life and death situations only. But even then access would be scrutinized by a judge. As for section 17, it only allows a specifically authorized police officer to get basic subscriber information in emergency situations and through an auditable process. Nothing more.

This article mentions that Section 34 allows the police to conduct warrantless searches. This section does not apply to police, it applies to federal inspectors. We have asked for changes to further clarify that the inspections are only to verify that the monitoring infrastructure exists, and that it does not allow the inspectors to view private information.

Canadians deserve the protection from criminals this legislation would provide. They also deserve to know the accurate facts. We invite Canadians to go to www.cacp.ca to get these facts and the reasons why police are speaking out C30.